APOLLO TYRES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 15.06.2009, wherein the approval under Section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is indicated to have been given with effect from 01.04.2007 as against from 01.04.2004 which the petitioner was seeking.

(2.) As aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 has been passed in the context of the provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the said Act. The said Section 35(2AB), as was applicable during the relevant period, reads as under:-

(3.) The facts of the case are that by a letter dated 17.09.2001, upon an application for renewal of recognition of the petitioners in-house Research and Development units at Perambra, Distt-Trichur beyond 31.03.2001 as also recognition of the Research and Development Centre at Limda village, Distt-Baroda (Gujarat), the Government of India through the Ministry of Science and Technology informed the petitioner that it had been decided to accord renewal of the recognition of the in-house Research and Development unit at Perambra as also to grant recognition of the in-house Research and Development unit at village Limda upto 31.03.2004. Thereafter, upon a similar renewal of the recognition of the in-house Research and Development units being sought, the Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, by its letter dated 15.04.2004 conveyed its decision of according renewal of recognition to the in-house Research and Development units of the petitioner at Perambra as well as at village Limda upto 31.03.2007. A similar renewal was also granted to the petitioner by virtue of the letter dated 31.05.2007 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology upto the period 31.03.2010. On 21.08.2008, the petitioner sought an amendment of the recognition granted to the in-house Research and Development units under Section 35 (2AB) of the said Act. In the said letter, the petitioner stated that, while it had complied with all the requirements and conditions laid down in the earlier approval and renewals granted, it had inadvertently omitted to make an application for approval of the in-house Research and Development units by filing the prescribed form No. 3CK as provided under Rule 6(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). Consequently, alongwith the said letter dated 21.08.2008, the petitioner attached an application in Form 3CK alongwith the latest annual report for the purposes of grant of approval under Section 35 (2AB) of the said Act in respect of the in-house Research and Development units for which approval had earlier been granted. It may be pointed out that Form 3CK is the prescribed form in terms of Rule 6(4), which stipulates that the application required to be furnished by a company under sub-Section (2AB) of the said Section 35 shall be in Form No. 3CK.